I came across this piece by Alexham today over at Confirm Them regarding Mitt Romney’s record on judicial appointments as Governor of Massachusetts. In this piece he referred to an article by Deal W. Hudson for the Morley Institute for Church and Culture which is highly critical of Gov. Romney’s record in this area:
For all of Romney’s rhetoric about activist judges, his own judicial appointments also leave much to be desired. The Boston Globe reported in July of 2005 that, Romney has “passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced, instead tapping registered Democrats or independents — including two gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights.”
In May of 2005, Romney selected for a district court judgeship Stephen Abany, a former board member of the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association who organized the group’s opposition to a 1999 bill to outlaw same-sex marriage. The MLGBA is “dedicated to ensuring that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision on marriage equality is upheld, and that any anti-gay amendment or legislation is defeated.”
Ironically, the Globe reports that two days before Abany’s nomination, Romney was lamenting the liberal tilt of the state’s bench, telling Fox News that ”our courts have a record here in Massachusetts??of being a little blue and being Kerry-like.”
Catholics would no doubt also be surprised to hear another Romney choice for the bench is Marianne C. Hinkle, who described herself in her application for the bench as a longtime active member of Dignity/USA, a group which wants to reform the Catholic Church’s views and teachings on gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender activity.
What exactly explains the contradiction between Romney’s staff/judicial choices and his conservative rhetoric? Since lower-court appointments are often stepping-stones to higher-court judicial appointments, should Catholics conclude that these choices are indicative of the sort of judges Romney would appoint as President?
Of course, I thought, there could be extenuating circumstances that may explain Romney’s choices. For instance, Massachusetts may require legislative confirmation of judicial appointments, therefore Gov. Romney did the best he could considering that there are perhaps 5 Republicans left in the state legislature.
So I contacted Gov. Deval Patrick’s office to discover the process by which Massachusetts confirms new judges.
It turns out that the Bay State does have a fairly unique process. The governor must submit judicial nominations to an eight-member panel known as the Governor’s Council. Members of this council stand for election in partisan contests every two-years. Considering that you could probably count the number of elected Republicans in Massachusetts using two hands, I believe it’s safe to say that the Governor’s Council probably has a Democratic majority.
So it appears that the case can be made that Gov. Romney was constrained in the kind of judge that he could get confirmed. It’s is highly unlikely that Mitt could have gotten many Scalia’s through this process.
However, is it fair to ask if Gov. Romney at least made an attempt to appoint constructionist judges? I would be interested to hear from our resident Romneyites if they have any background regarding Mitt’s initial appointments.
January 17th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
1) Yes, you are right, The Governor’s Council is very parisan to the left. All judical nominations have to go through them.
2) State courts are not Federal Courts. For one thing, there are various kinds of state positions. Some judge weighty constitutional decisions. Others determine if a murderer is guilty or not, or if a motorist was speeding along the Interstate. My understanding is that Romney tended to appoint the more activist judges to the more local courts, and he nominated more constructionist judges for the more weighty courts.
3) He has had to tend with his Supreme Court forcing gay-marriage down the throats of the people of Massachusetts. What do you think his opinion of Judical Activism is?
4) He said the following:
This is the best I can do in a hurry.
January 17th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Kavon, your suspicion of extenuating circumstances in the MA nomination process is correct. Any nominee for the courts in MA has to make it past the Governor’s Council, which in MA during Romney’s tenure was 8 out of 8 democrats (6 of whom were hard-core lefties).
Romney has been candid about the fact that his appointments do not take into consideration sexual preference or gay-rights politics…the reason being that that his appointments have all been lower-bench seats which focus on the legal qualifications and rule-of-law views of the candidates. Romney has not gotten the chance to back up his call for strict constructionist interpretation of the MA Constitution on the Supreme Court.
The fact that Romney got 25% republicans through that briar patch of a 100% lefty GC bodes well for his abilities with SCOTUS and a 49% conservative US Senate. One of Romney’s early executive orders from 2003 overhauled the nomination process to make it blind to partisan political leanings of the candidates, a very likely reason for his success. http://myclob.pbwiki.com/02-11-2003
January 17th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
To add to that, I believe one of the prime motivators, especially on lower courts, for Romney’s appointments was selecting individuals who were tough on crime. So I think in those instances he was willing to select some judges that were more liberal in other areas.
January 17th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to select a candidate on prolife side in a caustic envirnoment who doesn’t have a paper trail and knows how to craft his or her presentation.
Conservative Prolifers are much tougher on crime than the liberals.
Are we saying Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Osama would advocate for a prolifer when Republicans have the majority and power?
January 17th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Carol,
Which would you prefer as a judge?
a) A pro-life judge who will rule that way no matter what the law says.
b) A pro-choice judge who will rule as the law is written.
January 17th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
And Democrats aren’t idiots. They know a stealth candidate when they see one. And in Massachusetts, Democrats can do whatever they want without political consequences. They’d have no difficulty rejecting a nominee simply for being Christian.
January 18th, 2007 at 12:03 am
Mark,
I’m not sure of your point. Is there some kind of lawful integrity in the obliterations of an unborn child’s constitutional right to life?
It was once law to own a slave, in other country to kill a Jew. All kinds of things can become legal if you appoint screwballs.
I think it’s fair to say that rejecting nominees simply for being Christian are no different than people who wear white hoods and burn Crosses. We don’t want them appointed. Period.
January 18th, 2007 at 1:00 am
I’ve had a few things to say about this issue before.
Check it out here.
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/2006/08/romneys-judicial-appointments-and.html
Essentially, if you want strong constructionist judges and hate activist judges . . . you can’t go wrong with ROmney.
January 18th, 2007 at 1:21 am
You didn’t answer the question, Carol.
January 18th, 2007 at 6:46 am
Mark,
Sure I did!
I’d want judges who have the courage to stand up and say the Constitution of the United States does not grant anyone the license to kill anybody else. Not a child, not the Jews, not the Christians. That’s the law. Always has been and always will be.
January 18th, 2007 at 6:48 am
Jeff,
The gig is up.
January 18th, 2007 at 10:07 am
This Romney can say all he wants. When people get to know his “real” record instead of all his “I’m a so-con like you” hot air, then, as the post above says,
“The gig is up.”
January 18th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Peter,
Near as I know – there’s no high level religious right willing to get on board Romney’s campaign at this juncture.
Everyone Romney was courting is back on the fence.
Right Jeff?
January 18th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Peter,
Are you still going to be poo-pooing Romney if Huckabee still appears to be gunning for a cabinet position several weeks or months from now? That book tour isn’t going to last forever.
January 18th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Huckabee’s someone who I can agree with, murphy. I don’t think he’s running for Secretary of Health.
January 18th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Carol,
What you seem to want is judges who are willing to defy their superior courts and rule the way you want them to. It’s FAR better to have pro-choice judges who rule as the law is handed to them.
Your philosophy would make an absolute mess of the legal system if judges ruled according to what they thought was the correct interpretation of the Constitution.
January 18th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Murphy,
You are speaking about lower courts, I presume – where the issue would be moot, as lower courts do not have the authority to change Roe v. Wade.
The subject matter doesn’t arise.
Strictly speaking – the issue is whether or not anyone on any court knows the difference between truth and the lies.
Nobody prochoice does. Ergo – they should not be nominated to any court.
People who think they have the right to kill children, own slaves, kill Jews, burn crosses, hate Christians – there’s something off in the hat rack.
January 18th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Carol,
Yes, I am speaking about lower courts. That is where these two Romney appointees went. They were chosen despite their gay rights activist views because they were legally qualified and tough on crime. That was Romney’s requisite for district court and clerk magistrate level nominees. I’m guessing you didn’t read the link Jeff posted.
January 18th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
I live in Massachusetts and know precisely what Romney has done and hasn’t done.
Let’s try this another way.
Romney says he is now against gay marriage, right?
Would you approve of a nomination to a lower court where an individual thought killing homosexuals should be legalized?
January 18th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Carol,
Romney has always said he is against gay marriage. And from the sounds of where you are taking this topic with the hypothetical killing of homosexuals, rational discussion of the nominees in question has ended.
January 18th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
It’s killing the unborn you don’t object to for nominees?
January 18th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Carol,
What you are suggesting is that judges should not support any law that they don’t personally agree with. Why would you want to live in a country where that is the case? What is the difference between that and anarchy?
January 18th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Wow. I never thought of it that way. Mark, Murph and Jeff actually didn’t see the point
that nominees who advocate killing people should be enough to justify outrage on it’s
own merits until you applied the same logic to killing another class of people.
It’s outrageous!
I don’t know if you noticed this comment:
“And Democrats aren’t idiots. They know a stealth candidate when they see one. And in Massachusetts, Democrats can do whatever they want without political consequences. They’d have no difficulty rejecting a nominee simply for being Christian.”
Matt seems to agree that Romney’s game plan is nominating people to please bigots in Massachusetts. Replace
the word “Christian” with “Black People”. You can imagine the indignation of such a
suggestion!!
Mark – We already live in a country with there is anarchy and it operated with full consent of Romney.
January 18th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Grace, Carol, the point of what you’re saying wasn’t lost on me. FYI, I don’t sympathize in any way with the pro-abortion lobby…I just think that’s completely irrelevant to the real issue here.
My point earlier was that the most important duty of a lower-court judge is to rule in a manner consistent with higher authority courts and legislatures. It matters not what a judge’s personal feelings are if they do not interfer with the execution of this charge.
So if the law of the land says it’s legal to do X (I don’t care what), THAT’S IT. If you don’t like the ruling, appeal to a higher court. Renegade lower courts have no place in the design of our legal system.
January 18th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Murphy,
Nobody is disagreeing that if the law of the land says X – that a lower court judge has no
authority or power.
Let’s say from this point forward, everyone in the United States agreed that juddgtges from this
moment in time – to perpetuity – would be prolife, profamily. What do you think the Supreme
Court of the US would look like in 30 years?
Judges move up the system.
Judges need right judgement.
The thoughts inside of a judges head, lead to conclusions.
To suggest to a prolifer that they should have toleration of a judge who is for killing children in the womb,
is no different than the suggestion that judges who beleive in hanging negros should be tolerated,
because it has nothing to do with their appointments in lower courts.
Killing is killing.
The time has come when the Supreme Court in Massachusetts has decided they create laws.
If they decide tomorrow that it’s lawful to hang negroes, burn Jews or Christians, it’s a little late in the game
to object to the thoughts inside of their heads.
Does that help?